You are here

Archived: The Raphael Hospital Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19, 20 September 2013
Date of Publication: 6 November 2013
Inspection Report published 06 November 2013 PDF

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 19 September 2013 and 20 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and were accompanied by a specialist advisor.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Our judgement

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed.

Reasons for our judgement

Patients and relatives told us they always found the Raphael Medical Centre (RMC) clean and had no concerns over cleanliness or infection prevention control (IPC). Patients we asked said that staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and washed their hands prior to examinations. We saw that there was information about cleanliness and IPC available to visitors. This included information about hand washing. There were antiseptic gel dispensers at strategic points for maintaining good hand hygiene. We saw staff asking visitors to use the gel. We saw that taps at the hand wash stations were activated by using a “hands free” button. This reduced the risk of contamination arising from manually operated taps.

Records showed the RMC had policies and procedures in place to manage cleanliness and IPC. However, the provider may find it useful to note that these policies and procedures did not contain information of their origin, ratification or clear information on monitoring. There were no references to other policies, procedures or guideline documents covering specific areas of infection control. They did not detail the composition of the IPC team. This meant that the guidance and policies may not contain all the most up to date and relevant information.

An identified lead for IPC had been appointed and when we spoke with them, they understood their responsibilities.

Staff we spoke with told us they had been trained in IPC and the training records confirmed this. The notes from recent staff meetings demonstrated that IPC was a regular agenda item. We were told that audits had been regularly completed to show that good standards of hygiene had been achieved.

We saw that staff followed recognised hygiene practices. These included wearing clean uniforms, washing their hands thoroughly as well as using hand disinfectant such as antiseptic gel and using personal protective equipment, such as disposable gloves, aprons and face masks / visors if necessary.

One member of staff told us “we wear gloves and aprons when feeding patients through their PEG (this is a feeding tube into the stomach through the patient’s abdomen).

We were informed that the RMC was cleaned from 7am to 5pm daily seven days each week by cleaners dedicated to a specific area. We saw cleaners working in the RMC during our inspection and the whole building appeared clean, tidy and free from unpleasant odours. We saw waste bins clearly marked as clinical waste and the RMC had appropriate procedures in place for the removal of waste and clinical waste.